Judicial review of arbitration awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and interference is unwarranted unless there is a clear patent illegality or irrationality.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. ADMIT. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 11/09/2023 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur, in Arbitration Case No. 272/2022, thereby, quashing and setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 22/11/2021, passed in Arbitration Case No. 193/ARB/2019-20 and allowing the Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) preferred by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The facts giving rise for filing of the present Arbitration Appeal are as under:-

The Appellant herein is the owner and possessor of all the piece and parcel of prime land bearing Survey No. 66 of total 0.1394 hectares (land acquired) of Village Mouza Pardi (Rithi) Tahsil-Saoner (Rural), District-Nagpur. On 27/03/2018, the learned Deputy Collector Land Officer (General), Nagpur & the Competent Authority for acquisition of lands for the National Highways, has acquired 0.1394 hectares of land out of 0.91 hectares for the National Highway No. 547-E as per Award in Land Acquisition Case No. 71/A-65/2016-2017. The Appellant was using the acquired land for its industrial purpose for which the Government of Maharashtra, Directorate of Industries has issued the N.Α. order and also for commercial purpose.

4. It is the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Nagpur, has wrongly and falsely treated and mentioned the acquired land as "Dry Crop Land" i.e. as agricultural land, and therefore, has applied the rate of agricultural land.

5. Being aggrieved by the said Award granting very meager amount of compensation, on 30/12/2019, the Appellant preferred an Application under Section 3(G)(5) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) for proper, just, reasonable and adequate amount of compensation before the learned Additional Commissioner appointed as Arbitrator. The Respondent No. 1 filed its reply before the learned Arbitrator opposing the claim of the Appellant.

6. It is submitted that on 22/11/2021, the learned Arbitrator has passed an Arbitral Award, thereby partly allowing the Application and granting enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. 3588/- per Sq. Mtrs. for the acquired land of 1394 Sq. Mtrs. along with statutory benefits. The learned Arbitrator failed to grant statutory benefits including interest arising out of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”).

7. Being aggrieved by the said Award, the Appellant preferred an Application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for grant of statutory benefits. That, the Respondent No. 1 - NHAI also preferred an Application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, thereby, challenging the Arbitral Award. On 17/12/2022, the Appellant has opposed the Application by filing exhaustive reply and written submissions to the Application filed by the Respondent No.1-NHAI. On 11/09/2023, the learned District Judge-10, Nagpur, after hearing both the parties, passed an order and judgment, thereby allowing the Application under Section 34 preferred by the Respondent No.1-NHAI. The said judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge is the subject matter of challenge in the present Arbitration Appeal.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant Shri Kaptan submits that the learned District Judge observed that the learned Arbitrator has not assigned any reasons in support of the Award in holding that the acquired land is at par with the Non- Agricultural land. The learned District Judge has failed to read and consider that the learned Arbitrator, in its Award, has given detailed reasoning while holding the said view. That, bare perusal of the Arbitral Award specifically reflects that the learned Arbitrato